Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 689 (HP)

H. R. T. C. Shimla v. Sudha Thakur

2016-05-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.10.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 33 of 2007, titled Smt. Sudha Thakur and another versus Sh. Sunil Kumar and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,88,000/-, alongwith interest @ 8% per annum with Rs.3000 as costs/- was awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Insured, driver and claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Claimants had claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs, as per the break-ups, given in the claim petition, which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. “(i) Whether the deceased Shamsher Singh died due to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.?OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondents 4 and 5? OPR (iv) Whether the vehicle was being plied at the time of accident against the terms of the insurance policy and respondent No. 5 is not liable to indemnify respondent No. 4 ? OPR. (v) Relief.” 5. Claimants examined HHC Rattan Pal as PW1, Gulzar Chand as PW2, Dr. Piyush Kapila as PW4 and claimant herself appeared as PW3 in the witness-box. 6. On the other hand, driver Sunil Kumar respondent No. 6 herein appeared as RW1 in the witness-box. 7. The claimants have led evidence, oral as well as documentary, which do disclose that the driver has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident and there is no rebuttal to the same. The insurer has not questioned the findings returned on issue No.1. Thus, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 8. Before I deal with issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3 and 4 at the first instance. 9. Issue No.3. It was for the respondents/appellants herein to lead evidence, have not led any evidence. Thus have failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 8. Before I deal with issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3 and 4 at the first instance. 9. Issue No.3. It was for the respondents/appellants herein to lead evidence, have not led any evidence. Thus have failed to discharge the onus. However, I have gone through the evidence on record. The claim petition is maintainable on the face of it. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 10. Issue No.4. The respondents have not led any evidence thus, have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 4 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 11. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 12. I have gone through the discussion made by the Tribunal in paras 9 to 11 of the impugned award. The amount awarded appears to be meager, on the face of it. The deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident. The income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month. The documents on the file do disclose that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal, after making deductions has held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3500/- per month which is not legally correct. However, the claimants have not questioned the same thus it is reluctantly maintained. 1/4th was to be deducted, Keeping in view the 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 13. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment. 14. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. The Registry is also directed to convey this order to the claimants.